Translate

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

RUSSIA'S CHECKMATE IN SYRIA

Regardless of whether Russian military forces will turn the tide in the Syrian civil war or have an impact on the political negotiations ending that civil war, comparing the present with the historical precedent of Egypt in 1955, demonstrates thatRussia has already won a tactical victory the same way the USSR won a tactical victory in establishing a foothold in Egypt.

Even after the falling-out with Egypt, Russia has long maintained arms sales to Middle Eastern states because it was Soviet/Russian weapons that most Arab armies knew how to use.

Russia even developed a robust arms trade with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Post-Cold War Russia has also maintained a naval refuelling base in Tartous, Syria, even before the civil war erupted there.

However, President Putin's recent moves have generated a lot more publicity and fears and consternation among policy elites in NATO. Russia has symbolically leapfrogged once again into the region and has essentially jumped over NATO-member Turkey (which was also part of CENTO before it disbanded in 1979).

By positioning forces in Syria, Russia has demonstrated that it could project its power and presence to NATO and the US in a new arena beyond Ukraine. Moscow's recent move is reminiscent of geopolitical posturing of the 1950s in the Middle East, bringing up the cliched image of various regional countries serving as a chessboard between the US and Russia, with Putin having declared "checkmate".

The airstrikes represent the first example of direct Russian military engagement beyond the old Soviet Union borders since the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which saw the Red Army retreat following a decade of guerrilla warfare led by US-backed guerrillas, the so-called Mujahideen.

In an attempt to avoid interference with Israel’s military operations, Putin discussed the matter with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The two agreed on a mechanism to avoid trading fire accidentally. It is well known that Israel has been targeting various armed groups threatening to overrun the Golan Heights as well as Hezbollah fighters assisting Assad’s forces amidst souring relations with Lebanon. Armed with Israel’s green light, Putin gave the go-ahead.

Contrary to initial reports from the Kremlin, the airstrikes appear to have been directed not at Daesh targets, but rather at a range of rebel groups opposed to Assad’s regime. Amongst these were CIA-trained “moderates”. Instead of opposing Daesh, Putin’s goal seems to be the restoration of Assad’s control over his country.

Once moderate forces have been excluded from the conflict, the West, faced with the choice between a supposedly Islamic “Caliphate” run by bloodthirsty extremists and a brutal yet “moderate” dictator, will have no other option but to cooperate with the Syrian despot to ensure the end of Daesh. Mounting efforts from the US, Russia, Syrian regime forces and Iran will eventually defeat the militant group.

The coalition that has gathered against the threat of an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle-East would be embarrassingly outmaneuvered by antagonistic figures such as Assad and Putin.

Presumably, the restoration of the Syrian regime would, most likely, mark an acceleration of western disengagement from the region.

As a result, Russian foreign policy could affect Middle-Eastern political dynamics to a far greater extent than it does nowadays. Moreover, the Kremlin would keep its cherished military bases along Syria’s coast on the Mediterranean and Moscow’s success in ridding the world of feared terrorists would legitimize the more assertive foreign policy which has characterised Putin’s rule.

Perhaps more importantly still, Assad’s return to power would allow an increasingly prominent role to be played by Iran in the region just as it re-engages with the global economy. Across the Persian Gulf, the Saudis would see their influence wane as the Sunni kingdom’s proxies are defeated in Syria and its long-time ally, the US, distances itself from the region.

DO REREAD THOSE STATEMENTS BY 'MIDDLE EAST MONITOR' I HIGHLIGHTED IN RED...

IS IT JUST ME, OR DOES THAT SEEM LIKE A GOOD THING?
THE U.S. WOULD DISENGAGE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST?
OH, PERISH THE THOUGHT THAT SUCH A SANE THING MIGHT EVER HAPPEN AS THAT WOULD REALLY UPSET WALL STREET AND OUR REVERED MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL OVERLORDS!

WHY, WE'D SAVE TRILLIONS IN FIGHTING STUPID UNDECLARED WARS TO MANIPULATE OTHER NATIONS AND AMERICANS MIGHT NOT SEE ANOTHER BIG RISE IN OIL PRICES SO WALL STREET CAN CELEBRATE PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS.

WE MIGHT EVEN SEE WHAT'S WRONG HERE IN AMERICA IF WE WEREN'T SO BUSY WATCHING THE ARAB NATIONS AS WASHINGTON DECIDES WHICH RULER THERE TO GET RID OF NEXT!

GETTING AMERICA OUT OF THE BLOODY MIDDLE EAST...WHAT A THOUGHT!

I LIKE IT!
I LIKE IT A LOT!

A RUSSIAN "CHECKMATE"?TIME WILL TELL.

IT MAY TAKE MORE THAN A "BEAR" TO DISLODGE THE "EAGLE'S" TALONS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.